Talk:TPF War
Please do not change the generic war name unless there is a wide consensus to do so from people on both sides of the war. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Keep The Name As what was said above, lets keep the name, TPF War for now. It's unbiased and right for the moment. Not one alliance has helped TPF yet, so it isn't a major war until it truly escalates. Lets wait and see, and than decide on a name. --Ryan Greenberg (talk • ) 02:30, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :I particularly liked this proposal, based off of this logic, but I agree that TPF War should be maintained for now. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :I assume we'll be keeping the TPF War moniker, as nothing else seems to have taken root. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 06:31, January 3, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, for now. And that goes for these WWE people, too. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation uh, Shouldn't it be called The Phoenix Federation War? TPF war is just its abbreviation. Accusations/facts Can we please establish that TPF acknowledged its plans (against Athens only, not against Ragnarok) but the whole war isn't about whether they spied, it is about whether it was justified to spy, and whether the lack of diplomacy was warranted. I don't want to see any "Athens claimed", or "TPF was accused of" because it should be "Athens found out" and "TPF did" Leprecon (talk • ) I made the change to "claimed", I just feel that it's more neutral. I would have no problem with saying that Athens claimed it, and mhawk acknowledged it. That would feel more neutral to me. --EphriamGrey (talk • ) 22:55, January 2, 2010 (UTC) Minimum size for participants The one-man alliance "Not voting for VoxTards" declared war on Athens today in defense of TPF. Should we include this alliance on the TPF side, or do we have an (un)official minimum for alliance size before it gets included? Gopherbashi (talk • ) 04:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :I'm going to say wait and see if they get more members or not. A similar situation occurred regarding the VE-GDI War over the number of one man declarations, in the end we decided to remove them all. If they grow further than maybe we should come back and revisit the issue, however I think of it more like this: if you add 1 one-man alliance, then when 50 join in you add them all - or you just do none. My thoughts. -- Imperial Emperor - Talk ::I agree with Imperial Emperor on this. If there get to be numerous one-man alliances declaring, who are not united under a single AA, then perhaps we could individually list them - sans flags - in a collapsed list titled "Individual Participants". Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Participants For anyone looking for a quick and easy listing of those who DoW'd (and DoS'd) last night: War stats Gopherbashi (talk • ) 06:37, January 2, 2010 (UTC) -- I am editing people in right now. Please do not overwrite my edits. --Tushardhoot (talk • ) 06:49, January 2, 2010 (UTC) -- Thread with all DoWs and DoSs listed: http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=77482 Gopherbashi (talk • ) 06:50, January 2, 2010 (UTC) -- NVM. It seems I am not allowed to edit the article. Anyone else with this problem? --Tushardhoot (talk • ) 06:51, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :I semiprotected the article to prevent unregistered users from spamming it with all the DoWs. I'll deprotect it to allow you to edit. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation -- Thanks. Added the links, working on flags next. After that, links to wiki pages. Gopher, can you get the stats after update? --Tushardhoot (talk • ) 07:40, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :I update my stats every day around 9-10 PM ET from the All Alliances Display. It's not real-time (up to 12 hours in the past), but it's easier than going through 200 real-time stats. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 16:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC) -- Alright. Added stat images as well. I'm done for now, you can lock it again if you want. BTW, I couldn't edit the article earlier (when it was semiprotected) even though I was registered. Weird? Tushardhoot (talk • ) 08:24, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :You need an account for at least 4 days and have at least 10 edits before it will allow you to edit. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Since we've got some down time right now, should we be listing the participants in any type of logical order? As it stands right now, they just seem to be listed in some sort of jumbled mess. Anyone have issues if I rearrange them (at least for the time being) by order of entry into the war? Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:05, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :Go ahead, but keep CDT at the top how EphiriamGey put it, he's right about keepinc blocs together. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::Done Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:22, January 2, 2010 (UTC) I added in bloc images and reorganized alliances accordingly on both sides - I added CnG and SF on the Athens side, as I'm anticipating we'll see some more declarations on that side tonight. Perhaps we could organize each side by size? E.g., largest bloc on top, then second largest bloc, and then for individual alliances, largest alliance, then second largest, etc. There's also the matter of how to represent membership in two blocs - I'm quite sure this will come up once more members of Poseidon enter (Invicta/UPN are in CDT and Poseidon, Valhalla is in Duckroll and Poseidon). --EphriamGrey (talk • ) 22:50, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :Isn't it usually done using little symbols, like on the Karma Page, things like Π, ‡ and $ were used and put in footnotes. Kingcjc 23:39, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, look at Karma War for good examples. Also, Duckroll isn't a bloc in the traditional sense of the word; more like an agreement to coordinate military activities only if they find themselves in a war together. I have mixed feelings on including Duckroll as a subcategory. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 23:44, January 2, 2010 (UTC) ::What if they are included for the time being, but if other allies enter where those alliances would be better placed, we'll put them there instead, using the aforementioned symbols. If only one non-bloc'd alliance remains in there, we can just list it as an independent. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Additional information needed. Do we need to add the date at which the accused spying occurred(since the accused spying took place many months ago) and I think we need to add what these alliances did to attempt to resolved it peacefully, as well as, "the Rishnokof incident" and the "Athen massive tech raid incident" since the seem to be linked. I believe we could draw parallels to WWII and WWI? as there were many poweder kegs and the article will look more interesting and cover the full aspect of this incident. :I don't really see how the Athens tech raiding is related, could you give some detail there?--Vladisvok Destino (talk • ) 14:42, January 2, 2010 (UTC) UPN The government of UPN confirmed that the attacks upon TPF were not authorised, Haflinger had originally edited the page to reflect this (labelling them "UPN Rogues") however because of the number of edits it seems better to post here too. --Vladisvok Destino (talk • ) 18:15, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :The fact they were not authorized does not mean they did not occur. If and when the UPN issues a declaration of war or declaration of support for the Coincidence Coalition, then they may be moved or removed as necessary. There is already a footnote explaining the extent of their involvement, and their removal at this point is not warranted. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation I'm curious, at what point can attacks upon an alliance be considered part of the war? There is a Sparta nation that has attacked TPF with the reason "alliance war". I'm not trying to be a pain (I realise this could come off as me trying to be pedantic) I am just interested so that if I edit wars in future I can do so accurately. --Vladisvok Destino (talk • ) 18:25, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :Hmm, I'm curious as to that, as I'd not seen it. In both AI's and UPN's cases, there were multiple nations that attacked, as proved by screenshots that seem to have been removed in the editing process (I'll look for those). For the time being, I've re-added UPN and AI, but I've added to the footnote to clarify UPN's stance on the war. If anyone knows if AI's similarly rsponded regarding the two or three wars its members declared, add them into the new statement, too. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Ok, thanks for that :) I'll make a note of this for next time. --Vladisvok Destino (talk • ) 18:35, January 2, 2010 (UTC) I've spoken to UPN government, and confirmed that the wars made by UPN on TPF were, in fact, rogue attacks. UPN is allied to CDT, and many of the alliances on the CoC side of the war, and I see absolutely no point in listing them as a combatant on the CnG/SF side of things. However, for now, I'll leave it be. :We know who they're allied to, and the footnote clearly states that they did not sanction the wars. If and when they take an official stand regarding the war, then they can and will be (re)moved from the list. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::I know the member of AI who attacked (he used to be in my alliance, Andromeda), and I'm quite sure he's fully aware of his actions :P. UPN government would appreciate it if this matter could be reconsidered. :::Well, I do expect to see a DoS/DoW from them eventually, at which point, I assure you, they will be moved or removed. Same goes for AI. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Accusations of RoK Spying Should we mention the the public notice that IRON, NATO, and NSO put out a day or two before their involvement in the conflict that outlined evidence that RoK had a massive spying operation of their own, and asked for an explanation? - President Laughlin (talk • ) 18:56, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :I don't see how that's really relative to this war, could you explain more? Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::The CB of the war is TPF, during the Karma War, attempted to destabilize the alliances that are curently attacking them. However, one of the alliances attacking TPF have apparently themselves been engaging in a vigorous espionage campaign. I should also note that the alliances targeted by RoK's alleged spying have not yet announced a DoW on RoK as of yet, just it's allies in this conflict. President Laughlin (talk • ) 20:38, January 2, 2010 (UTC) :::Yes, I understand that, what I don't see is how it's entirely related. Until such a declaration of war is made, that really is irrelevant to the war at hand. However, I would agree that a section needs to be added to better explain the casus belli. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation This war was arguably more a war of PR than actual combat, as the spying accusations were a major part of that, they are most certainly relevant. However it probably does not require a major mention. Shan Revan (talk • ) 10:23, January 3, 2010 (UTC) Well, war's over now, so I suppose the discussion is moot. Save it for if the people in question start their own war. --President Laughlin (talk • ) 05:17, January 4, 2010 (UTC) I would say the posts of ROK spying and Athens/Londo assisting the coupe of UED are relevant to this war, and should be included in the links section at the bottom of the article. They were likely posted because of the light they shine on the CB. I would bet that ppl connectected to Super Complaints would disagree, while the people connected to CoC would agree. I think that a post is considered relevant by one side of war, is important enough to get a link at the bottom.----Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 07:00, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :I disagree, but I'm a CC sympathiser. ;) It had no bearing on any discussions regarding the war and did not appear in any CB. Locke-(Talk| ) 15:07, January 6, 2010 (UTC It does not matter what you think though, what matters were the context in which those threads were received by a large number of players. All you have to do is read the replies to those threads and realize that a large segment players took them to cast doubt on the validity of the Athen CB. Whether or not this is true is of no use to us, what is use to us is that it was relevant to enough players to warrant being on this page. Add the links to the bottom and allow curious minds make their own decisions in the future.--Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 23:30, January 6, 2010 (UTC) :Please keep a civil tongue. That is all. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation : My apologies, I did not mean to have an insincere tone, when I read what I wrote I see it reads a very different tone than I originally intended.--Supercoolyellow (talk • ) 05:19, January 7, 2010 (UTC) Commanders of CoC I edited the commanders on the CoC side, leaving only Liquid Mercury listed. Considering that this entire war was held up on account of him, I feel he's the only guy who really deserves credit for organizing the CoC forces. :Looks good. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation I added Bill n Ted to the CC commanders, as he did the brunt of the work alongside LM, particularly before LM showed up whilst he was absent. Shan Revan (talk • ) 10:20, January 3, 2010 (UTC) C&G Is their any need to put C&G done when only one alliance from them is involved? Kingcjc 22:49, January 2, 2010 (UTC) I feel it's prudent, considering the support shown by C&G for Athens, considering the possible size of this war, and considering the fact that it's likely that more of C&G will enter this war tonight. Most of CN associates C&G with this war, because of Athens involvement, so I feel that alone should be grounds for it. --EphriamGrey (talk • ) 22:53, January 2, 2010 (UTC) Use of "Supercomplaints" I had inserted "Supercomplaints" as the name of the SF/C&G-led coalition, but it has since been removed. I was under the impression that this term was widely used for that side of the war. Is this not the case, and, if it is, does anyone have any issues with me reinstating it as the header for force1? Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :Supercomplaints seems to have been adopted as the de facto name for this coalition (along with variations such as Complaining Friends, etc). It's what I'm using in my stats from now on, and I think it's being used by a wide-enough group of people that it can be included in the article. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 23:41, January 2, 2010 (UTC) No objection here, it's the most prominent name I've heard thus far, aside from "Athens side"--EphriamGrey (talk • ) 22:54, January 2, 2010 (UTC) Really would like some name, though: I'm already tired of saying "The guys attacking TPF." --President Laughlin (talk • ) 23:29, January 2, 2010 (UTC) SuperGrievances was much more prevalent; change it. Soviet Canuckistan (talk • ) 09:05, January 3, 2010 (UTC) :I reverted it as there is more acceptance so far here for Supercompaints, as demonstrated above. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :A quick search of the CN Forums reveals 93 posts with "Supercomplaints" against 34 posts with "Supergrievances". However, since this war ended before one single name was adopted on a widespread basis, I think some note or asterisk with alternative names definitely needs to be included. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:54, January 3, 2010 (UTC) ::This sounds good, just make another footnote, or I will later if it doesn't get done. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Blank CB Box? What's up with this? Someone added in a large CB box that's filled with blank space. I removed it for now, as it's a bit of an eyesore --EphriamGrey (talk • ) 00:18, January 3, 2010 (UTC) :I added it. I think there needs to be a section for explanation of CB, as stated earlier in this article, but I myself don't know enough about it to fill it in. I was hoping someone more knowledgeable would. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Worst War Ever! May I be the first to defend this name change. It's so appropriate! And I can assure every everyone that when every single person involved in this war sees how it has so untimely ended, they will unanimously support this name: WORST WAR EVER! :Leave it for now, if enough people - from both sides - agree to it, then it can be changed. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::I'm pretty sure we all agree to this. Lyran (talk • ) 06:44, January 3, 2010 (UTC) :::Undoubtedly, someone will make an OWF poll within a few days, and we can go from there. Also, please see Gopherbashi's comment under "Keep the name" above. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation ::::Just as I predicted http://forums.cybernations.net/index.php?showtopic=77407 :::::I rather meant a real poll with more than one, rage-induced, possibility, thank you. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation :Leave it for now, but I am absolutely certain that 99% of Planet Bob will agree with this. There is no other way. Locke-(Talk| ) 21:51, January 3, 2010 (UTC) :I have seen this unofficial moniker grace the CN Forums more than a number of times now; it may result in widespread use. I'm surprised no one tried to start a "Second War of the Coalition" movement. Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:56, January 3, 2010 (UTC) I've failed to see anything except Worst War Ever be used in reference to this war over the past several days. At which point should an alteration be made? Gopherbashi (talk • ) 22:32, January 4, 2010 (UTC) :Well, it's already listed in the alternate names section. Really, as Theamazingdeist states in the section below, I really think this name is just being used irrationally by people who are a bit ticked they don't have their war. If it's still commonly-used in a while, it can be changed over. Michael von Preußen voicemail • nation Worst War Ever is being used everywhere, not just by "warhawks". It is being used in the CCC forum for example, and that is hardly the most war-eager alliance around. 10:22, January 6, 2010 (UTC) I've also seen the "Facepalm Conflict" to highlight both disbelief and the fact that it didn't escalate.--Androo Romanov (talk • ) 17:28, January 13, 2010 (UTC) Phoney War / Sitzkrieg / Sitting War, etc. Having gotten over this war being the worst war ever and thinking a little more clearly, I have felt the need to draw attention to a name which could really have a chance at being 'serious'. It has been brought up before how this conflict is similar in many respects to the Phoney War (aka: 'Sitzkrieg', 'Bore War', etc) of actual RL history, where all the major powers of Europe had declared war, but engaged in little actual fighting due to hesitation by both sides. Furthermore there is the similarity in how the Western Powers (CC) were declaring war on the Germans (SF) for the reason of defending Poland (TPF), but never actually got around to doing so and subsequently ended up letting their allies get pounded, while providing nothing but spiritual support, in what became known as the 'Western Betrayal' (which isn't exactly the case here). This war (or more accurately: stage of a war) sure didn't end the way the way the CN war did, but I am sufficiently convinced by its extreme similarities to bring attention to this on the wikia. Remembering the War of the Coalition, I think it is somewhat standard practice to want to name wars after real ones if similar enough (and to take the opportunity to do so).